I know if we give them an inch they'll take a mile Ian. I'm pretty sure that we may be talking about different kinds of faith rather than degrees of the same old. Chris' DMT argument isn't bad, yet we can induce weird experience just through sensory deprivation. As Fidd points out, the best experimental subjects are people we don't like. Current argument tends to deafeasible reasoning rather than falsifiability Pat. Much can be done in thought experiment rather than the Mengele Mangle. You are no doubt right Chris that epistemological lengths reduce to phallus waggling and the need for nitrous oxide to get a real length more turgid in form. Science has provided Viagra for such lighter moments, and one can be sure philosophers have long forgotten more natural methods. Science and religion can share epistemic ground, but both practices rarely engage in deep philosophy, more likely proceeding by assertion that is forgotten in the heat of argument - a bit like the assertions made about wonder western capitalism in considering Chavez (etc.) without the conditions that produce him. I have never found any evidence for god other than in the talk of others and in wondering about what living might be for. In my life it stands in the same ground as fiction, has effects that can be explained through science, but still leaves 'why questions' after this reflection that do not have to lead back to myths that trap us in the past. Much religion is clearly describable as evil and should be condemned. In some it is less harmful than drinking. Without too much blather, some form of real history and modern communication should direct us to decisions on a more peaceful life, and it seems to me failures in this lead back to religious idiocy. Dawkins does little other than assert people should be less stupid, then seeks out the stupid to argue with. Looking at Blair and the goons chatting with him today hardly encourages us in much belief in argument as a modern rationality play passes before our eyes, as mad as any mystery play and much less satisfying than thoughts of what a red-not poker might produce, even if we wouldn't want to return to that. I suspect most of the grounds for rejecting most religion are not empirical. I am off for a pint, rather than staying to argue this. It would be good if a few of us were putting the world to rights in a corner of the pub by the open fire. Sadly, even the open fire has gone this year. I promise to drink Chris' share though.
On 29 Jan, 14:15, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > Although the experiences can be recreated, the physical manifestations of > those experiences can be produced in a lab by injecting the right > combinations of chemicals, or even a few healthy puffs of DMT. This is what > strips away the empirical possibilities of religion, for me. Everything > verifiable about the experience can be recreated without the mythos. That > being said, I do tire of the lengths that must be gone to in order to make > an epistemological point...it often does seem to reduce to literary phallus > waggling. > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:21 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > Cheers Chris. You're still wrong mate. No one much in here gives a > > flying onanist's dream about philosophy really, which is at least > > reasonably healthy. Like me, you are really a tropical fish realist, > > having realised it's a lot easier to treat stuff as stuff. The > > epistemological position is somewhat different and more difficult to > > understand, but if you show too much interest in real epistemology I > > will have to shoot you for the good of your own health. > > It doesn't take too much adjustment to be able to say you can > > experience faith and godswank empirically. For the latter, you can > > just let the Jehovas in and listen to them and watch them > > godswanking. To have empirical faith experience you can spend years > > learning tricks of looking between your eyes and in to the back of > > your head and swoon out amongst a bunch on incest (oops! I meant > > incense) burners or any variety of such as you don't care to be > > bothered with. People have been doing this for ever, but then people > > have been doing dumb stuff forever too. Where we might be at variance > > with the godswank could be in either the quality of the subjective > > experience or our explanations of what it was. > > Believing in what science has amassed also requires epistemic > > justification. These days, this is not normally empiricist in any > > easy way. > > > On 28 Jan, 23:35, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, indeed you have, droning being rather your specialty, old boy. > > However, > > > I'll semi-politely disagree with you. Empirical stances, can in the end, > > be > > > traced back to solid, rock hard evidence. Now, you may tut about few of > > us > > > actually going to the lengths of verifying every empirical observation > > for > > > ourselves, and you'd be right. That doesn't negate that each empirical > > > observation may in fact be reproduced, and experienced empirically. > > Faith, > > > and godswank, cannot. > > > > Completely off subject, I do so hope I can lift a few pints with you > > before > > > too long. I'd love to hear that droning in person. > > > > On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 5:20 PM, archytas <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > You are wrong Chris on an empirical stance not requiring faith. Shape > > > > up boy, I have droned on about this before. There is always some form > > > > of epistemic risk management, current received wisdom being we should > > > > trust evidence ahead of theory. What always seems odd to me about the > > > > godswank (collective noun) is that they are less prone to believe in > > > > my invisible, blue six foot rabbit (with limited powers), than their > > > > invisible, infinitely-sized god with omnipotence, usually on the > > > > grounds that I am some kind of liar, but some ancient guy who talked > > > > with snakes wasn't. The key issues are to do with how much risk you > > > > take with your epistemic base as you move further into theoretical > > > > definition that is empirically testable. That one can have religious > > > > experience seems beyond doubt, what it is much more debatable than > > > > what a photon is (though much may have to be done on that). I suspect > > > > the godswank like feeling special and so jerk up their epistemic risk > > > > taking in order to exclude evidence. Some separate their religious > > > > moments from the rest of their lives, maybe a bit like those who are > > > > only weekend junkies. We can hook people on sensory deprivation > > > > because the visions they have afterwards are so powerful. Whatever we > > > > do in epistemology, trust is involved, including trust that science > > > > isn't just another set of rat-droppings, recipes or laundry lists > > > > written by the prophet while he was chatting up the blue rabbit. > > > > > On 28 Jan, 17:30, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 28 Jan, 15:45, fiddler <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > nice somersaulting around logic. Here's Your disconnect: You need > > > > > > faith to believe IN something for which their is no proof. To not > > > > > > believe is simply that, not believing until proof is furnished. > > Just > > > > > > as theists have a problem with understanding what words like dogma, > > > > > > evidence, theory of____, and believe mean and how to use them, you > > are > > > > > > misusing the term faith in the same manner. > > > > > > And you have faith in that. Heck, I don't mind being accused of > > > > > having faith. According to Pascal's wager, it's far safer; so I > > could > > > > > only say, good luck to you. And I really do mean that!! > > > > > > > On Jan 28, 5:46 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 28 Jan, 12:55, Ian Pollard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On 28 January 2010 12:30, Pat <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > So, it boils down to the fact that you have faith that there > > is > > > > no > > > > > > > > > 'soul'. Okey doke, I can accept that. > > > > > > > > > Got a name for that straw man, Pat? :) > > > > > > > > > I don't want to make a tyrant of logic here, but if someone > > claims > > > > the > > > > > > > > existence of non-material soul then evidence for that claim > > must be > > > > > > > > supplied. Russell, teapot, etc. > > > > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > > > And I asked you on what basis you derived your belief that ther > > eis > > > > no > > > > > > > soul. It boiled down to your faith rather than any evidence. > > There > > > > > > > is no Russell's Teapot! Besides, my definition of a soul is a > > 'field > > > > > > > of energy' and if you refute fields of energy, well... Yes, I > > know > > > > > > > that particular one hasn't been empirically proven...yet, but > > that > > > > > > > does not mean that it does not exist; rather, it only means it > > hasn't > > > > > > > been discovered yet. If you recall, there was a time when Uranus > > and > > > > > > > Neptune hadn't been discovered; did they only pop into existence > > when > > > > > > > the telescope landed there? And the whole Russell's Teapot thing > > is > > > > > > > so naff I'm surprised anyone falls for that logic. As I've said > > > > > > > before many times, just because you have not detected something > > is > > > > not > > > > > > > evidence that it does not exist.- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > > -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > Groups > > > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > > > .com> > > <minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups .com> > > > > . > > > > For more options, visit this group at > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > > ""Minds Eye"" group. > > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > [email protected]<minds-eye%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups > > .com> > > . > > For more options, visit this group at > >http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en.
